APPENDIX D REAL ESTATE

Transcription

1 APPENDIX D REAL ESTATE

2 This page intentionally left blank

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS D REAL ESTATE... D-1 D.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE... D-1 D.2 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION... D-1 D.3 PROJECT LOCATION... D-4 D.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES... D-6 D.5 TEMPORARY WORK AREAS... D-13 D.6 BORROW AND DISPOSAL SITES... D-13 D.7 ACCESS TO PROJECT AREA... D-13 D.8 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-OWNED LAND... D-13 D.9 EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS... D-14 D.10 NON-FEDERALLY OWNED LAND... D-14 D.11 ESTATE ANALYSIS... D-14 D.11.1 Minimum Interest Factors... D-14 D.11.2 Paragraph a.... D-15 D.11.3 Paragraph b.... D-18 D.11.4 Paragraph c... D-18 D.11.5 Paragraph d.... D-19 D.11.6 Paragraph e... D-19 D.11.7 Paragraph f.... D-19 D.11.8 Paragraph g.... D-20 D.11.9 Paragraph h.... D-20 D Paragraph i.... D-20 D Paragraph Conclusion... D-21 D.12 LERRD CREDITING... D-21 D.13 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE... D-22 D.13.1 Contractor Recommendations... D-22 D.13.2 USACE Recommendation... D-23 D.14 UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT, PL D-23 D.15 RELOCATIONS, ALTERATIONS, VACATIONS AND ABANDONMENT... D-23 D.16 INDUCED FLOODING... D-24 D.17 MINERAL AND TIMBER ACTIVITIES... D-25 D.18 ZONING ORDINANCES... D-25 D.19 NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE... D-25 D.20 NON-FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROJECT... D-25 D.21 PROJECT SUPPORT... D-25 D.22 REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION SCHEDULE... D-25 D.23 BASELINE COST ESTIMATES AND MCASES COST ESTIMATES... D-26 D.24 PROJECT MAP... D-28 D-i

4 LIST OF TABLES Table D-1: Project Features and Components... D-9 Table D-2: Summary of the Baseline Cost Estimate... D-26 Table D-3: MCASES for... D-27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure D-1: Study Area... D-5 Figure D-2: Project Location Map... D-6 Figure D-3: General Site Plan... D-7 Figure D-4: Site Plan Phase 1... D-10 Figure D-5: Site Plan Phase 2... D-12 Figure D-6: Planimetric Map of the Project Area... D-28 D-ii

5 D REAL ESTATE D.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The purpose of this Plan (REP) is to present the overall real estate requirements, costs, acquisition schedules, and other real estate requirements necessary for the Central and Southern Florida, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration Project. This REP is tentative in nature, and the final real property acquisition lines and estimates of value are subject to change after approval of the Project Implementation Report (PIR), decision document, to which this Plan is appended. D.2 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION Along with the Central & Southern Florida (C&SF) Comprehensive Review Study, the Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration Project PIR was authorized by Section 309(l) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992 (Public Law ) which states: (1) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA -- The Chief of Engineers shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Central and Southern Florida, published as House Document 643; 80th Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether modifications to the existing project are advisable at the present time due to significantly changed physical, biological, demographic, or economic conditions, with particular reference to modifying the project or its operation for improving the quality of the environment, improving protection of the aquifer, and improving the integrity, capability, and conservation of urban water supplies affected by the project or its operation. This study is also authorized by two resolutions of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives, dated September 24, The first resolution states: Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the United States House of Representatives, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Central and Southern Florida, published as House Document 643, Eightieth Congress, Second Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time, in the interest of environmental quality, water supply and other purposes." D-1

6 The second resolution states: Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the United States House of Representatives, that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Central and Southern Florida, published as House Document 643, Eightieth Congress, Second Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time, in the interest of environmental quality, water supply and other purposes for Florida Bay, including a comprehensive, coordinated ecosystem study with hydrodynamic modeling of Florida Bay and its connections to the Everglades, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Florida Keys Coral Reef ecosystem. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was enacted on October 12, Section 528 of the Act (Public Law ), entitled Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, authorizes a number of ecosystem restoration activities and also provides specific direction and guidance for the CERP. (b) RESTORATION ACTIVITIES 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (A) DEVELOPMENT (i) PURPOSE -- The Secretary shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a proposed Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving and protecting the South Florida ecosystem. The Comprehensive Plan shall provide for the protection of water quality in, and the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, the Everglades. The Comprehensive Plan shall include such features as are necessary to provide for the water-related needs of the region, including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida Project. (ii) CONSIDERATIONS -- The Comprehensive Plan shall (I) Be developed by the Secretary in cooperation with the nonfederal project sponsor and in consultation with the Task Force; and (II) Consider the conceptual framework specified in the report entitled Conceptual Plan for the Central and Southern Florida Project Restudy, published by the Commission and approved by the Governor. (B) SUBMISSION -- Not later than July 1, 1999, the Secretary shall (i) Complete the feasibility phase of the Central and Southern Florida Project comprehensive review study as authorized by section 309(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Statue. 4844), and by two resolutions of the Committee on Public Works and D-2

7 Transportation of the House of Representatives, dated September 24, 1992; and (ii) Submit to Congress the plan developed under subparagraph (A)(i) consisting of a feasibility report and a programmatic environmental impact statement covering the proposed federal action set forth in the plan. (C) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES -- Notwithstanding the completion of the feasibility report under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall continue to conduct such studies and analyses as are necessary, consistent with subparagraph (A)(i). In Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (PL ), Congress approved the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (known as the Yellow Book ), which describes and outlines the CERP: (b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 2. APPROVAL (A) IN GENERAL -- Except as modified by this section, the Plan is approved as a framework for modifications and operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other waterrelated needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, and the improvement of the environment of the South Florida ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the benefits to the natural system and human environment described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this section, for as long as the project is authorized. A Project Implementation Report must be completed for Acme Basin B Discharge as set forth in Section 601(b) (2) (D) of WRDA (i) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS -- Before implementation of a project described in any of clauses (i) through (x) of subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for the project a project implementation report prepared in accordance with subsections (f) and (h). (ii) SUBMISSION OF REPORT -- The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the project implementation report required by sub-sections (f) and (h) for each project under this paragraph (including all relevant data and information on all costs). D-3

8 (iii) FUNDING CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL -- No appropriation shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph if the project implementation report for the project has not been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. Finally, Section 601(h)(4) of WRDA 2000 further requires that PIRs document: 4. PROJECT-SPECIFIC ASSURANCES (A) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS (i) IN GENERAL -- The Secretary and the non-federal sponsor shall develop project implementation reports in accordance with Section of the Plan. (ii) COORDINATION -- In developing a project implementation report, the Secretary and the non-federal sponsor shall coordinate with appropriate federal, state, tribal, and local governments. (iii) REQUIREMENTS -- A project implementation report shall (I) Be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic regulations promulgated under paragraph (3); (II) Describes how each of the requirements stated in paragraph (3)(B) is satisfied; (III) Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C et seq.); (IV) Identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system; (V) Identify the amount of water to be reserved or allocated for the natural system necessary to implement, under state law, sub-clauses (IV) and (VI); (VI) Comply with applicable water quality standards and applicable water quality permitting requirements under subsection (b)(2)(a)(ii); (VII) Be based on the best available science; and (VIII) Include an analysis concerning the cost-effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the project. D.3 PROJECT LOCATION The project is located within an unincorporated area of Palm Beach County commonly referred to as West Boynton. It is part of greater Boynton Beach, which includes the City of Boynton Beach and the incorporated area to the west. The boundaries of West Boynton are generally considered to be Hypoluxo Road to the north, Military Trail to the east, Florida s Turnpike to the west, and Lake D-4

9 Worth Drainage District Lateral Canal L-30 to the south. The project area is within Township 46 South, Range 42 East, in Sections 3 and 4, Palm Beach County, Florida. The project site is mostly bounded by Hagen Ranch Road to the west, L-29 to the north, Jog Road to the east, and L-30 to the south. Most of the area consists of low- to medium-density residential development. The neighborhood is approaching 60 percent build-out with a few significant, large tracts of vacant land in agricultural use available between Jog Road and Hagen Ranch Road. The land west of Hagen Ranch Road remains largely agricultural. Access to the project area is from major federal and state roads and highways onto Hagen Ranch Road or onto Jog Road. See map and figures below entitled Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration Project CERP, Figure D-1 Study Area, and Figure D-2 Project Location Map. FIGURE D-1: STUDY AREA D-5

10 FIGURE D-2: PROJECT LOCATION MAP D.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES The purpose of the project is to create a wetland ecosystem using treated water which would normally be lost to deep-well injection. The wetland will reclaim a valuable resource, recharge the local aquifer system, create a new wildlife habitat, increase available green space, increase the abundance of native plant species and extend the function of the nearby Wakodahatchee Wetlands. The tentatively selected wetland restoration project would be located on acres of farmland just east of the Southern Region Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). About 114 acres of the site would be hydrated using treated wastewater from the SRWRF. The proposed plan would result in creation of a wetland system about three times the size of the Wakodahatchee Wetlands, and its location adjacent to the Wakodahatchee site would leverage the recently created ecosystem restoration benefits by expanding the constructed wetland into an integrated system having even greater regional significance. Total Project Wetland Footprint Acres, more or less (Exterior Perimeter) Net Wetland Restoration Acres, more or less (at water elevation 21 feet) D-6

11 FIGURE D-3: GENERAL SITE PLAN The configuration includes a Phase I design and construction, which includes about 102 acres of gross wetlands restoration to be created in the western half of D-7

12 the project. The remaining 63 acres of project area on the eastern half of Winsberg Farm, considered Phase II, would contain the same habitat types as Phase I. The tentatively selected plan (TSP) is configured assuming constant inflow of water to maintain continuous inundation. Water levels will be allowed to fluctuate seasonally within a one- to two-foot range throughout the entire 114 acres of net wetlands in response to natural seasonal variations in rainfall. This variation in the depth and duration of flooding (i.e., hydroperiod) will influence the growth and distribution of plant species within the wetland. Inflow from the SRWRF effluent enters the western half of the project (Phase I). The western half of the project is divided by an internal embankment, which creates a Cell 1 to the north and a Cell 2 to the south. Each cell's water level can be independently managed by operation of inflow gate and butterfly valves and outflow at control structures. Each cell has a gated control structure with a 24- inch RCP culvert. The control structure can be operated to: Allow flow to the eastern half of the project (Phase II); Circulate flow in the western half of the project by a 15-HP recirculation pump; or Send flow to deep-well injection by a 250-HP discharge pump in the event pool elevations rise beyond a set point due to direct rainfall. Table D-1 presents the main features, acreages and elevation plans, as follows: Phase 1 encompasses acres of the total acres of the project site (see Plates G-2, G-3, A-1, A-2 and A-3 below). Recreational features include a visitor/nature center building, a system of elevated boardwalks and shelters above the wetlands, a parking lot and entrance, and other support facilities, such as a small maintenance building, dumpster stalls, a sanitary wastewater lift station, and HVAC/Chiller assembly. The nature/visitor center has a 14,000- square-foot footprint, or 0.30 acres. The system of elevated boardwalk and shelters are 1.25 miles long and covers 0.90 acres above the wetland area. The parking lot, entrance, maintenance building and other appurtenances cover a total of acres. The exterior/perimeter embankment covers acres, and the internal embankment covers 1.80 acres. There are 1.80 acres dedicated to the access road and other infrastructure. Therefore, the net area of restored wetlands (i.e.,wet area at maximum operating level) is acres. D-8

13 TABLE D-1: PROJECT FEATURES AND COMPONENTS Project Features/Components Net Wetland Area (i.e., Wet Area at Maximum Operating Level Phase I Phase II Total Elev. Elev. Area (Acres) (NGVD29) (Acres) (NGVD29) (Acres) Includes: Shallow Marshes (44.65) (28.23) Deep zones and (16.05) (11.52) Tree Islands (10.90) 20.5 to 25 (2.75) Internal Embankment Exterior Embankment and Embankment (Include: Control Structures and Pipe System, Pump Station and Appurtenances, and Piping) Other Structural Features Articulated Concrete Mattresses Emergency Overflow Structure Recreational Features Visitor/Nature Center Parking and other Appurtenances Elevated Boardwalk and Shelters (0.9 Acres) to Access and Perimeter Maintenance Roads Total Project Area D-9

14 FIGURE D-4: SITE PLAN PHASE 1 D-10

15 Phase II encompasses about acres of the total acres of the project site. Phase II proposes no recreational features (see Plate G-4 below). The exterior/perimeter embankment covers acres, and the internal embankment covers 2.50 acres. There are 1.50 acres dedicated for access road and other infrastructure purposes. There are 1.80 acres dedicated to an emergency overflow spillway (0.90 acres) and erosion control articulated concrete mattresses (0.90 acres). The net area of hydrated wetlands encompasses acres. The overflow spillway will provide emergency flow from the Phase II wetland into the L-30 Canal across the L-30 right-of-way. Preliminary investigation indicates that the L- 30 Canal is owned and controlled by the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD), Palm Beach County. The spillway will be about 300 linear feet long in the direction of the south perimeter embankment of Phase II (east-west), and will extend about 200 linear feet from the crest of the south perimeter embankment, across the L-30 Canal north side right-of-way into the drainage canal and encompassing 0.90 acres. The L-30 Canal will be lined with articulated concrete mattresses covering the bottom and both banks, and extending 100 linear feet beyond both ends of the spillway s outflow end, and encompassing 0.90 acres. The federal government will propose to the sponsor that an irrevocable permit or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be obtained from the LWDD for such lands that are owned and encumbered by Lake Worth Water District embankment lands in fee, and necessary for project purpose. However, if the LWDD owns such land in easement, then the sponsor will be required to obtain the necessary lands and certify a permanent flowage easement for such project purposes. Reference paragraph F.11, entitled Construction features," and subparagraph 3(d), entitled Emergency overflow spillway," for a discussion of the estate analysis. Deep Zones -- Total area is acres, and the net deep-zone area is acres, minus the 2.75 acres for the Tree Islands. Tree Islands acres Embankment -- An embankment that is 7.5 feet high, with 3:1 side slopes and a 10-foot top width will surround all of Phase II. The embankment alignment was selected to maximize the wetland area. It was necessary to alter the embankment alignment from the original plan to account for a stormwater retention pond that will be constructed on the eastern edge of Phase II. It was also necessary to move the alignment of the embankment on the northwest corner of the project along the proposed Flavor Pict Road. This realignment allows for a proposed fire and rescue station. D-11

16 FIGURE D-5: SITE PLAN PHASE 2 D-12

17 Twenty-four-inch RCP culverts with actuated gates -- Two 24-inch RCP culverts with actuated mechanical weirs and stub-outs were installed during Phase I of the project. These culverts are being used to control flows into Cells 3 and 4 of the project, and will be controlled remotely from the SRWRF, with the option of on-site operations. The design of the flow control structures allows flow from Phase II to Phase I for disposal, using deep-well injection. Fifteen-horsepower pump for wetland recirculation -- A 15-HP pump will be located in the southeast corner of the project to a line running to the head of Phase 2 to recirculate water in the wetlands and prevent stagnation. Discharge from the pump will be through two diffusers, one in each of the wetland cells. This pump will be similar to the pump used in Phase 1 of the project, and the specifications are provided in the mechanical portion of Appendix A. D.5 TEMPORARY WORK AREAS Temporary stockpile, construction and contractor s lay-down areas are all within the project's footprint; therefore, no additional lands are required for such purposes. D.6 BORROW AND DISPOSAL SITES No additional borrow or disposal sites outside the project area are required. Two types of materials will be used as borrow material. The topsoil layer scraped off to about six inches will be used for non-structural features, such as tree islands and the exterior ditch/embankment combination. The second type is the soil to be excavated during deep-zone construction to be used in the construction of the project's structural features, such as the perimeter and interior embankment. D.7 ACCESS TO PROJECT AREA Ingress and egress will be via federal, state, municipal, county and other roads available to the non-federal sponsor for project purposes. Access to the project site will be from the west side on Hagen Ranch Road, and from the east side on Jog Road. Both roads provide direct access to the project site. D.8 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-OWNED LAND There is no federally owned land included within the lands, easements, or rightof-way (LER), and none is required for the project. D-13

18 D.9 EXISTING FEDERAL PROJECTS There is no existing federal project that lies fully or partially within the LER required for the project. D.10 NON-FEDERALLY OWNED LAND Palm Beach County acquired about 175 acres from the Winsberg property owners with certain restrictive covenants. The use of the property for this project was envisioned at the time of land sale to Palm Beach County. Additionally, use of the land consistent with these restrictive covenants would neither encumber the efficacy of the project nor would it be inconsistent with project purposes. D.11 ESTATE ANALYSIS At this time, project features remain in a state of flux while the design is being fully explored. As such, this analysis may have to be updated to encompass features beyond the scope of items discussed below. The TSP for this wetland restoration project would be located on about 165 total acres of farmland just east of the Southern Region Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). About 114 of the 165 acres of the site would be hydrated using treated wastewater from the SRWRF and is considered to be the total net wetland restored area. D.11.1 Minimum Interest Factors This analysis of the minimum real estate interests required for the Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration Project is completed in accordance with the Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Programmatic Regulations, and the Six Program-Wide Guidance Memoranda of April Those programmatic regulations state that fee simple title to the property is the general rule; however, those same regulations call for an examination of the following factors in reaching a final decision (Paragraph 1.9.3): a) Identify all construction features and determine the minimum interest required to support construction and operation, maintenance, repair and replacement (OMR&R). Construction includes such items as dredging, digging or filling canals, altering contours, depositing materials, and erecting structures; b) Evaluate any affirmative rights the government must secure over benefited lands to meet the defined restoration objectives. These are in areas where ecosystem functions and processes are being restored, or on lands required as a buffer to protect those restored lands. Examples of D-14

19 such activities include the right to plant or remove vegetation, erect signs, or conduct periodic prescribed burns; c) Identify the length of time that the affirmative rights or restrictive covenants are required for the project; d) Determine whether constructed project features may need to be modified over time due to uncertainties in science, formulation or design (adaptive management); e) Determine whether project land, or portions thereof, will be open for public use (either active or passive uses); and f) Other factors, including a comparison of the cost/value of specific types of easements to fee value, assessment of potential for severance damages from fee acquisition; determination of whether public owners have the legal capability to convey fee; assessment of stewardship/omrr&r considerations regarding the risk and consequences of encroachment on project land by adjacent owners; the risk and consequences of violation of easement terms by fee owners; monitoring and enforcement capabilities of the local sponsor; assessment of the negative perception by the public of private benefits or gain due to landowner reservations where easements are selected; and assessment as to whether the State Marketable Title Act requires re-recording of easement instruments; g) Evaluate any restrictions on the existing landowner s use of benefited lands that are necessary to meet specifically defined restoration objectives for the project. Examples include limiting grazing or placing prohibitions on plowing, alteration of contours, placement of structures for human habitation, and use of pesticides or fertilizers; h) Determine whether a Takings Analysis is appropriate in instances where there will be an increase in flooding or other hydrologic alterations to private lands that may have risen to the level of a property taking. This is particularly significant where the impacted lands are not otherwise needed for construction or project OMR&R, or where only a minimal interest is needed. A Takings Analysis is not required in all cases, such as those in which fee or a significant interest is already justified for construction or OMR&R. i) When any of the above analyses indicate that less than a fee interest is required for the project, sound real estate practices traditionally dictate that fee acquisition is typically appropriate when the cost of easements is estimated at 75 percent of fee or higher. Ultimately, the decision of fee or easement needs to be fully supported, taking all factors into consideration. D.11.2 Paragraph a. This project will consist of the construction of a low-perimeter embankment around project lands to create a wetland and upland habitat. The embankment will be about 7.5 feet high, elevation 26.5 feet, with a 10-foot wide crest and one D-15

20 vertical on three horizontal side slopes. The wetlands will be designed to maximize the ecological benefit and will contain cells with varying pool depths and upland zone elevations to create a range of habitat environments. Construction on the site will consist of four basic items, including (1) demolition of the existing site; (2) creation of uplands; (3) construction of certain features; and (4) the creation of recreational facilities. The paragraphs below discuss each of these items separately: 1. Demolition of the Existing Site: Construction on the site will presumably consist of the demolition of any existing structures, grading of project lands, etc. Current project documents do not fully address in detail the demolition process; however, it is reasonable to assume that since the lands were used as a farm, there would need to be site clearing and will most likely include the removal of any undesirable plants and shrubs by stockpiling and burning, if allowed. Certain areas of project lands will be excavated to create deep zones to create a variety of wetland habitats. A perimeter embankment will be constructed through the use of excavated fill material. The area of the demolition would normally require a temporary easement for a borrow site; however, due to the local sponsor currently holding fee title to the proposed site, no temporary work area easements will be required for the demolition as long as the local sponsor certifies the land to USACE for construction. 2. Creation of Uplands: Uplands will be created from the placement of fill material excavated from the interior of the same tract to create a perimeter embankment. The proposed operations of the constructed wetlands are to maintain water surface elevations of 20 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD 29) with a seasonal fluctuation between one and two feet. This variation would occur in both wetland cells of Phase II. No surface-water discharges are allowed from the system which has been designed to retain the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) rainfall event with no discharge. Should discharge from the system be required, an emergency overflow spillway will be constructed which will allow excess flows to enter the L-30 Canal by means of a 300-linear-foot spillway. 3. Construction of Features: Project features include two 24-inch RCP culverts with actuated gates, two wetland cells divided by an internal embankment, a 15- HP pump for wetland recirculation and an emergency overflow spillway. a) The two 24-inch RCP culverts with actuated gates: Phase II of the project uses two 24-inch RCP culverts with actuated mechanical weirs on the western project boundary. These structures have already been constructed D-16

21 with stub-outs in Phase I of the project. The culverts will be used to control flows into Cells 3 and 4, and will be controlled remotely from the SRWRF, with the option of on-site operations. The design of the flow control structures allows flow from Phase II to Phase I for disposal. Use of the emergency overflow spillway is an option during rare weather events to remove excess flows from Phases I and II. b) Embankment: An embankment that is 7.5 feet high, with 3:1 side slopes and a 10-foot top width will surround all of Phase II. The embankment alignment was selected to maximize the wetland area. It was necessary to alter the embankment alignment from the original plan to account for a storm water detention pond that will be constructed on the eastern edge of Phase II. It was also necessary to move the alignment of the embankment on the northwest corner of the project along the proposed Flavor Pict Road. This realignment allows for a proposed fire and rescue station. Under Section 12-9, paragraph (c)(1) of Engineering Regulation , an embankment only requires a permanent easement as its minimum real estate interest. c) The 15-HP pump for wetland recirculation: A 15-HP pump will be located in the southeast corner of the project with a line running to the head of Phase II to recirculate water in the wetlands and prevent stagnation. Discharge from the pump will be through two diffusers, one in each of the wetland cells. This pump will be similar to the pump used in Phase I of the project, and the specifications are provided in the mechanical portion of Appendix A. d) Emergency overflow spillway: In addition, Phase II will have an overflow spillway that will provide emergency flow from the Phase II wetland into the L-30 Canal across the L-30 right-of-way. The spillway will be about 300 linear feet in the direction of the south perimeter embankment of Phase II (east-west), and will extend about 200 linear feet from the crest of the south perimeter embankment, across the L-30 Canal north-side right-of-way into the drainage canal. This structural feature will need an easement beyond the project s property and over the north-side LWDD right-of-way of 0.90 acres. The L-30 Canal will be lined with articulated concrete mattresses to cover the bottom and both banks, and to extend 100 linear feet beyond both ends of the spillway s outflow end (i.e., 500- feet long by 80-feet wide, or 0.9 acres). As an alternative to acquiring a permanent easement, USACE may consider a legally binding agreement or document for construction, as well as operations and maintenance (O&M) of this feature. Such an alternative might include an irrevocable permit from the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD), or possibly a memorandum of understanding between LWDD and the local sponsor, assuming that LWDD currently has a sufficient interest in the real estate to enter into such an agreement. To be acceptable, the terms of the document would have to provide substantially the same rights as a D-17

22 permanent easement, allowing for the construction and O&M of this feature. If such an alternative acquisition method is sought by the local sponsor, USACE will document the legal sufficiency and acceptability of that document by means of a legal opinion executed by a real estate attorney authorized to approve title, concluding that the document constitutes an interest in land under the laws of the state of Florida and is acceptable under the Department of Justice Title Standards. At a minimum, the two culverts, the recirculation pump and the emergency overflow spillway cited above would require a permanent easement as cited in Section 12-9, paragraph (c)(1) of Engineering Regulation for permanent structures. While a permanent easement would be the minimum estate for the culvert in accordance with the regulations, the recommended estate is fee. 4. Creation of Recreational Facilities: Project lands will be designed to include several recreational components, some of which are compatible with the project function and operation, including a 6,300-linear-foot boardwalk with interpretative signage and shade shelters, as well as a public interpretative center and small parking area. The minimum interest for a recreational area requires fee title under Section 12-9, paragraph (b)(5) of Engineering Regulation D.11.3 Paragraph b. The SFWMD has developed a list of benefits/affirmative rights regarding this project. These benefits consist of the following: The project would create a wetland ecosystem that would grow a diverse and productive native emergent marsh, hardwood swamp, tropical hardwood hammock and pine flatwoods habitat. In addition to the wetlands aspect, the project should also trigger an expansion of habitat for wildlife. Such a habitat will help conserve regional native-wildlife populations in a secure, productive and high-quality habitat of native plant species. There will also be a recreation and aesthetics component to the project site which will allow passive recreation for the public, including birdwatching, hiking, nature photography and environmental education. Finally, such a project would limit urban sprawl and preserve green space in a densely populated and rapidly developing region. D.11.4 Paragraph c. The constraints, prohibitions and restrictions on private use include, but are not limited to, the following: D-18

23 A prohibition of all agricultural/farming activity is required for project lands, including all activities that would add nutrients to these wetlands, such as grazing, plowing, seasonal agriculture, etc. All plowing and planting activities would be restricted, as well as hot fires and the disturbance of flora. There can be no impedance of the overland surface flow within each wetland cell. Hence, there would be a prohibition against the use of fences, roads, embankments, fill areas and structures of any kind. Construction of infrastructure within any of the four wetland cells would be prohibited, such as roads, sewers, plumbing, etc. It should also be noted that the Special Warranty Deed from the Winsbergs to Palm Beach County contains certain restrictive covenants that must be respected. These restrictions, in short, include the following items: Restricts use of the land as a constructed wetland treatment and/or groundwater recharge facility with additional restrictions; Restricts structure height; Restricts against public use, other than those specific uses cited in the deed; and Prohibits against use of the property for percolation ponds, except for final polishing of pre-treated wastewaters and stormwaters to maintain wetlands. D.11.5 Paragraph d. The length of time of the affirmative rights and restrictions would be perpetual. This project is not limited to a certain length of time. D.11.6 Paragraph e. It does not appear that the constructed project features would need to be modified over time, but wetland features could certainly be tweaked to accommodate future changes. It is feasible that if the project requires drastic modification in the future to change the essence of the property for other purposes, then any restrictions placed on the property could pose a problem. For instance, if the property is restricted by a conservation easement, that estate will limit the future use of the property and may prohibit the use of this land for other features, such as flood control, the purpose for which this land was originally envisioned. This problem would not be an issue if fee title ownership is required instead of an easement. D.11.7 Paragraph f. The recreational components that are compatible with the site and project include the following list of items: D-19

24 6,300 linear feet of boardwalk overlooking the wetlands; Shade shelters; Interpretative signage displays; A public interpretative center; and Small parking area. D.11.8 Paragraph g. Palm Beach County currently owns the parcel of land in fee. The difference between fee and easement would roughly translate to an amount that is significantly higher than 75 percent of the fee value. There is no potential for severance damage associated with this tract. Palm Beach County would only certify the lands for construction and would retain title for operation and maintenance of the project. The project lands are protected from encroachment by the surrounding landowners by a perimeter embankment which will be significantly elevated above the surrounding properties. Since the local sponsor is the fee owner, violation of the easement terms should not be an issue. There will be no private benefits or gains involved since the county is the fee owner of project lands. The State Marketable Title Act does not require re-recording of easement documents since they are deemed to be perpetual and to run with the land. D.11.9 Paragraph h. A review of project documents reveals no discharge of water into the surrounding lands. The only variance from this statement appears to be in the event that pool elevations rise beyond a set point due to direct rainfall. Should the water within the project area rise to a level that would harm project wetlands and pond to a certain elevation, an emergency overflow spillway will be constructed as a project feature to dispel any excess water. The local sponsor, in conjunction with another state agency, owns all lands that connect project lands to the L-30 Canal. All excess water will flow through these sponsor- and state-owned properties and will not discharge onto any private property outside of state government ownership. Therefore, in the opinion of Corps District Council, there will not be any increase in water emanating from project lands onto private lands surrounding the project lands. Hence, there would be no takings situation. D Paragraph i. After consideration of all affirmative rights required by the government and the restrictions on landowner use of the property, it was determined that a perpetual flowage/conservation easement would generally be the minimum interest required over the majority of project lands within the Winsberg Farm D-20

25 Project. The lone exception is those specific features that are required by regulation to be owned in fee title as discussed above. D Paragraph Conclusion The purpose of this project is to create a passive wetlands system, which in turn will restore wildlife and vegetative communities, including habitat for protected species. To provide for these benefits, a perpetual flowage/conservation easement would appear to be the minimum estate required for the wetlands area of the property, a large portion of the existing site. However, the proposed changes to the property would directly impact the highest and best use of portions of the property from an agricultural to wetland site. In addition, due to the prohibitions placed on land usage, there will be little to no economic use for those areas except as a wetland in post-project conditions which could also inhibit incorporating future governmental changes or modifications to this site. Certain portions of the property which make up a significant part of the property has been identified for recreational use. This portion of the site will require fee ownership. In addition, the local sponsor is the fee owner of the property and will not be required to acquire any additional lands for the project. Moreover, the value of a conservation easement would be significantly more than 75 percent of the fee value for the land. Therefore, it appears that a requirement for fee interest in the project lands is a sound policy decision. It is, thus, recommended that fee title to project lands be required. PROPOSED ESTATES: FEE TITLE -- The fee simple title to (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos., and ), subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. (These will be completed during the design phase) D.12 LERRD CREDITING The CERP Congressional Authority reads, in part, that the non-federal sponsor will be responsible for all land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (LERRD) necessary to implement the Plan; and the sponsor will be afforded credit toward the non-federal share of the cost of carrying out the project. It also states that credit will be afforded to the non-federal sponsor, regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of lands or interests in land acquired by non-federal interests. Therefore, in accordance with this authority, Palm Beach County will be afforded credit for all land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas necessary and provided for construction, and operations and maintenance of the project. Also, in accordance with the Central and Southern Florida Project, D-21

26 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Programmatic Regulations, Six Program-Wide Guidance Memoranda dated April 2005, "credit will be afforded to the sponsor based on the actual cost of the land needed for a project instead of what the land is worth at the time of a Project Cooperation Agreement signing. Consequently, the Project Delivery Team (PDT) should use actual acquisition costs in plan formulation, cost estimating, and crediting, subject to those costs being reasonable, allocable, and allowable. Therefore, credit for the LERRD provided by Palm Beach County will be based on actual cost of the land, the administrative cost to purchase the lands, and the incidental cost for acquiring the LERRD. The project footprint consists of acres, plus the 1.80 acreages required for the emergency spillway structure and articulated concrete mattresses for a total of acres and rounded to 165 acres, more-or-less. Therefore, the sponsor will be afforded credit for those lands provided and necessary for project purposes for construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M). For a breakdown of real estate costs, See Table D-2 and Table D-3 of this report entitled SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE COST ESTIMATES AND MCASES COST ESTIMATES. D.13 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE No Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste (HTRW) is anticipated. Phase I and II Environmental Audits of the Winsberg Farm property were conducted. These audits determined that the Winsberg site has been undeveloped and used for the growth and distribution of agricultural products for more than 30 years. Upon reviewing PBCWUD files and public data sources, CH2MHill determined that there is no reason to believe (that) this site has been adversely impacted by past on-site practices or neighboring properties. The consultant further reported that no Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites were identified within a one-mile radius of the site. To ensure that the site was completely and defensibly assessed for HTRW, USACE contracted with Taylor Engineering to complete the Phase I activities in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guidance and to re-analyze samples at Phase II locations for remaining parameters of concern. D.13.1 Contractor Recommendations The recommendations from Taylor Engineering are: 1. The project site contains relatively low levels of some persistent pesticides throughout. Recommend further interpretation of the soil analytical D-22

27 results to help determine potential ecological impacts that may occur during operation of the proposed project. 2. Assessment revealed no unbiased soil or groundwater analytical evidence of petroleum product contamination. No further action. 3. Elevated nitrate levels in the area of MW-2 were assumed to be, most likely, due to storage and handling of fertilizer localized around the fertilizer storage/mixing area. Since such storage practices have been discontinued, no further action is required. D.13.2 USACE Recommendation Actual exceedances of Florida Soil Clean-Up Target Levels are rare, marginal and/or disputed (biased, as proven by duplicate tests). Consequently, the only remaining concern is the widespread occurrence of chlorinated pesticides, particularly DDT (4,4'-DDT) and DDT byproducts (4,4 -DDD and 4,4 -DDE). Though analytical data revealed no apparent contamination hot spots for pesticides to minimize any potential leaching into the water, the top six inches (estimated) of the existing topsoil layer will be scraped off the entirety of the footprint and stockpiled within the project site to be subsequent used in the construction of the tree islands. At the same time the topsoil is being excavated, the exterior ditch/embankment combination feature will be constructed and capped. D.14 UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ACT, PL Preliminary investigations indicate that there were no persons, farms and businesses displaced during the acquisition of lands required for project purposes. Palm Beach County will be required to certify compliance with the requirements of PL , including landowners being properly advised of their rights under the program and appropriate benefit determinations, if any. D.15 RELOCATIONS, ALTERATIONS, VACATIONS AND ABANDONMENT Relocations, alterations, vacations and abandonment are defined In Public Law An Attorney s Opinion of Compensability is unavailable for this draft REP but will be completed in accordance with Engineering Regulation , Chapters 12 and draft Chapter 17, and provided in the final REP, if necessary. Such a report will present the general nature of impact to each facility or utility, identity their owners and purpose, and whether owners have compensable real property interest. D-23

28 Preliminary information shows the existence of electrical lines and other services. Electrical service to Winsberg Farm is provided by Florida Power & Light (FPL). An aerial 23 kv feeder line runs east-west along the L-30 Canal. Running east from Hagen Ranch Road, the feeder line is located on the northern side of the canal for 2,600 feet. The feeder line then crosses the canal and runs along the southern side of the canal for the remainder of the project area (see Plate F-1). An aerial line running north-south is connected to this feeder line and supplies power to the Winsberg Farm residence at Hagen Ranch Road. Electrical relocation will be required for this north-south line where the line crosses the Phase II construction site. The shortest route of relocation will be to bury the segment of the line that cross into the Phase II construction site (see Plate F-2). The approximate burial distance is 500 feet. The electrical line will be enclosed in conduit inside a waterproof duck bank. Communication Lines -- Telephone service to Winsberg Farm is provided by BellSouth. The telephone lines are located on the same poles carrying the aerial 23 kv feeder line and the line supplying power to the Winsberg Farm residence at Hagen Ranch Road (see Plate F-1). The relocation of telephone lines due to construction is about the same as described above for electrical lines for a total of about 500 feet. The telephone line can be buried in the same duct bank as the electrical line in a separate run of conduit (see Plate F-2). Cable and fiber-optic lines owned by Adelphia Cable only run north-south along the west side of Hagen Ranch Road and do not cross into the Phase II construction site. Therefore, cable relocation will not be necessary (see Plate F- 1). D.16 INDUCED FLOODING The purpose of this project is to create a new wetland ecosystem, and flooding outside the project limits is not anticipated. No modeling to study the effects of TSP on maintaining flood protection has been performed nor anticipated to be necessary. Under normal operating conditions, wetland cells will only receive as much effluent from the SRWRF as can be removed through the combined effects of evapotranspiration (ET) and percolation (seepage). The average daily flow from the TSP on an annual basis is estimated to be 3-5 MGD per day or cfs. About percent of this amount of water would be lost due to ET. The remainder will contribute to an off-site loss due to percolation, which will be negligible when compared to design flow rates of the adjacent LWDD L-29 and L-30 canals, which are roughly 100 cfs and cfs, respectively. This small amount of off-site seepage by the TSP would have no adverse or significant impacts to existing levels of service for flood protection and does not justify flood D-24

29 protection modeling. The TSP project has already received permits, and construction is nearly completed for Phase 1. D.17 MINERAL AND TIMBER ACTIVITIES Preliminary investigations indicate no known present or anticipated mineral activity within the vicinity of the proposed project that may affect construction, operation or maintenance. D.18 ZONING ORDINANCES No known enactments of zoning ordinances were proposed in lieu of or to facilitate acquisition in connection with the project. D.19 NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE Navigational servitude is not applicable to any components of the proposed project. D.20 NON-FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROJECT Information is currently being obtained and will be provided in the final REP. D.21 PROJECT SUPPORT No real estate issues relevant to planning, designing or project implementation are expected, nor are there any issues that may impact project schedules, budgets, PCA, or quality of deliverables since these lands are currently owned by Palm Beach County. There is no known or anticipated opposition to the project by landowners in the project area, or any known or anticipated landowner concerns related to issues that could impact the acquisition process. D.22 REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION SCHEDULE Palm Beach County currently owns or controls the lands required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. Following execution of the PCA, the federal government will provide Palm Beach County with general written descriptions, including maps as appropriate, of the LER and the facility/utility relocations the government has determined the non-federal sponsor must provide and perform for project construction, operation and maintenance. LER descriptions will include the required estate, acreage, D-25

30 location and schedule requirements in detail sufficient to enable the sponsor to fulfill its obligations to provide the LER and relocation, if any, in a timely manner. D.23 BASELINE COST ESTIMATES AND MCASES COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates are based on actual land and administrative costs provided by Palm Beach County. Table D-2 provides the Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate costs as follows: TABLE D-2: SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE COST ESTIMATE Project: Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration Project Date: November 23, 2005 Lands and Damages: Estate Acres Per Acre Cost Fee $14, $2,313,631 Other 1.80 $0 $0 Improvements 0 $0 Severance: Subtotal $0 Minerals $0 $0 Subtotal Lands and Damages (RD) $2,313,631 Acquisition/Administration: Fed $57,000 Actual Acquisition Cost -- non-fed * $257,143 Future Acquisition Cost -- non-fed $20,000 PL $0 Contingency (RD) ** $0 Subtotal Acq/Adm Cost $334,143 Total Estimated RE Costs (RD) $2,648,000 * The sponsor has been requested to provide a breakdown of administrative and incidental costs. ** No contingency has been added since all lands are owned or controlled by the sponsor. D-26

31 TABLE D-3: MCASES FOR REAL ESTATE Estimated Project Costs ( Acres) Date: Nov. 23, 2005 Project: Winsberg Farm Wetlands Restoration Federal Non-Federal Sponsor 01 Lands and Damages 01AA Project Planning $30,000 01B-- Acquisitions 01B20 Actual Cost by Local Sponsor (LS) * $0 $257,143 01B40 Review of LS $10,000 $0 01C-- Condemnations 01C20 By LS $0 01C40 Review of LS $0 01F-- Appraisals 01E30 By LS $0 01E50 Review of LS $3,500 01F-- PL Assistance 01F20 By LS $0 01F40 Review of LS $0 01G-- Temporary Permits/Licenses/Rights-Of-Entry 01G20 Future Work By LS $0 $20,000 01G40 Review of LS $10,000 01G60 Damage Claims $0 01M00 Projected Related Administration Review of PCA $3,500 01R-- Payments 01R1 Actual Land Payments $2,313,631 01R1B By LS $0 01R2 PL Assistance Payments 01R2B By LS $0 Total Project Cost (RD) $2,648,000 * The sponsor has been requested to provide a breakdown of administrative/incidental costs. D-27

32 D.24 PROJECT MAP The planimetric map shows the project area. FIGURE D-6: PLANIMETRIC MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA D-28